[Pulp-dev] PUP5 -- Adopting the "Common Cure Rights Commitment" for Pulp Core

Thu May 31 19:49:18 UTC 2018

Voting closes June 2nd.

I have read this through and appreciate @richardfontana's
response/explanation to questions:
https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-393317027

+1

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Through feedback on the issue and discussion in #pulp-dev, one small
>> language revision [0] was added to PUP5 [1]. I believe we are ready to call
>> a vote.
>>
>> Voting for PUP5 is open and will close on June 2nd. Please respond with
>> your vote to this thread if you feel so inclined (lazy consensus). Barring
>> any -1's cast, PUP5 will be merged on June 4th.
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/richardfontana/pups/commit/99fcd35e1cc396
>> a1ba5a34555f093304dd07a333
>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> @ipanova, I think of the core team as only maintaining pulp/pulp and
>>> pulp/devel so I limit the scope of this to those repos only. I think
>>> pulp_rpm (or any plugin) could adopt the CCRC without a PUP by following
>>> the "Displaying the CRCC section
>>> <https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files#diff-e883d39d60672a684862d3cef971e94eR106>"
>>> in their own repo.
>>>
>>> @dawalker, relicensing to GPLv3 is an alternative. It's not a bad
>>> option, but it would be more complicated. Since every committer with even a
>>> single line of current code is a copyright holder of the codebase, and it
>>> would require a 100% signoff from all copyright holders, in practice this
>>> can be difficult. Also someone may not even use that email anymore so it
>>> may not even be possible. I haven't assessed how many Pulp3 committers we
>>> have currently for the Pulp3 codebase.
>>>
>>> I was recently part of a relicensing which failed
>>> <https://github.com/python-bugzilla/python-bugzilla/issues/25>, but it
>>> shows what the process looks like:  https://github.com/python-bugz
>>> illa/python-bugzilla/issues/25 If someone wants to champion switching
>>> to GPLv3 and create an issue like that and get all the signoffs I'm not
>>> opposed to relicensing to GPLv3 instead of adopting the CRCC.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Other than the noted point that it takes time, is there any reason why
>>>> Pulp should stay on the current license instead of moving to GPLv3 (one of
>>>> the stated alternatives in this PUP)?  I don't know much about the
>>>> differences currently, but it strikes me that our new Pulp 3 using Python 3
>>>> would be a good fit for moving to a new license as well that has taken
>>>> various things such as this enforcement issue into account and evolved over
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> --Dana
>>>>
>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>
>>>> Associate Software Engineer
>>>>
>>>> Red Hat
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>> <https://red.ht/sig>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *understanding
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To make a concrete example to prove my understating:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since pulp_rpm is maintained by core team we could adopt this change,
>>>>>> meanwhile pulp_deb is beyond our control and we( core team) cannot enforce
>>>>>> or influence this change.
>>>>>> Yes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ina Panova
>>>>>> Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>>>>>>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Pulp Update Proposal (PUP) pull request has been opened by the
>>>>>>> go-to-lawyer for the Pulp community, Richard Fontana. The PUP is PUP5 [0].
>>>>>>> I don't want to paraphrase it here, so please read it [0] if you are
>>>>>>> interested to understand what it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am proposing a period of questions/discussion via the list/PR and
>>>>>>> then a call for a vote according to the process. All questions are welcome,
>>>>>>> please ask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # Timeline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today - May 18th mailing list and PR discussion
>>>>>>> May 18th - formally call for a vote which would end 12 calendar days
>>>>>>> from then May 30th
>>>>>>> May 30th - Merge or reject
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # FAQs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this relicensing Pulp?
>>>>>>> No. It's still GPLv2. This adopts a procedural enforment approach
>>>>>>> within the existing license. See @rfontana's response here:
>>>>>>> https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9#issuecomment-384523020
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do all prior contributors need to sign off on this change?
>>>>>>> No, because it's not a relicensing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this affect core, plugins, or both?
>>>>>>> This PR is only scoped to affect the GPLv2 codebases maintained by
>>>>>>> the core team. Plugins make their own decisions without PUPs. Initially
>>>>>>> this would be pulp/pulp, and as other GPLv2 repositories are maintained by
>>>>>>> the core team, it would apply to this in the future as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/9/files
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180531/4507b84a/attachment.htm>